Cessna 182 solo

B

banjo

Well-Known Member
Had a student that I trained and soloed in a C182. She took her checkride in the aircraft and aced her checkride. Only aircraft she ever flew.

I signed her student pilot certificate and gave her a high perfermance endorsement also the day she soloed.

The examiner said the HP endoresment was unnecessary and the endoresment on her student cert was all that was required.

Where would I find that in the regs as I assume it would apply to soloing in a tailwheel aircraft also. Thanks
 
By not signing the HP endorsement you'd have locked her into 182's until somebody gave her a HP endorsement. I'm not sure why anybody would want to do that though.

The last student to solo a 182 at our airport didn't fare as well.
 
Codyjp said:
By not signing the HP endorsement you'd have locked her into 182's until somebody gave her a HP endorsement. I'm not sure why anybody would want to do that though.

The last student to solo a 182 at our airport didn't fare as well.
Click to expand...
Loss of control on landing, right?
 
Codyjp said:
By not signing the HP endorsement you'd have locked her into 182's until somebody gave her a HP endorsement.
Click to expand...

How?

My understanding is that a student pilot is endorsed for each make/model, and the HP endorsement is not required for student pilot operations...but that once they pass their checkride, they'd need the HP to fly the 182 again.
 
I soloed a student in a 182 and signed a high performance endorsement. I signed it because solo=pic and the reg read something like must receive training and a one time endorsement to operate as PIC of a high performance airplane.
 
element94 said:
How?

My understanding is that a student pilot is endorsed for each make/model, and the HP endorsement is not required for student pilot operations...but that once they pass their checkride, they'd need the HP to fly the 182 again.
Click to expand...

I was under the assumption we were discussing a post PPC scenario.
 
Thought this thread would of generated more action. Must of finaly found a subject nobody knows anything about.
 
I've solo'd student pilots in high performance aircraft before.

Proper endorsements are always required, per 61.31. Those endorsements are required to act as PIC. It doesn't matter if a person is a student, private, or commercial pilot. To act as PIC (which a solo student pilot certainly is), the pilot needs an endorsement.

I'm surprised the examiner said it wasn't necessary. I'd be curious to hear his logic.
 
jrh said:
I've solo'd student pilots in high performance aircraft before.

Proper endorsements are always required, per 61.31. Those endorsements are required to act as PIC. It doesn't matter if a person is a student, private, or commercial pilot. To act as PIC (which a solo student pilot certainly is), the pilot needs an endorsement.

I'm surprised the examiner said it wasn't necessary. I'd be curious to hear his logic.
Click to expand...

See post 4.

It doesn't pass the logic check but in fact it is correct.
 
Codyjp said:
See post 4.

It doesn't pass the logic check but in fact it is correct.
Click to expand...

Is there an LOI published somewhere that supports this? Or is it based on a reg somewhere?

61.31(f)(2) seems really clear to me. "...no person may act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane..."

What exemption do student pilots have? How does the make/model sign-off for solo student pilots overrule 61.31?

They're acting as PIC and the regs require an endorsement to do so. What more is there to say?
 
I will run it by my examiner and or FSDO next time I see them. Aparently its pretty common. Got this email from another guy I know.

I wasn't grandfathered in but all my training and check ride was done in a tailwheel airplane and no one ever made an endorsement entry.
Click to expand...
 
jrh said:
Is there an LOI published somewhere that supports this? Or is it based on a reg somewhere?

61.31(f)(2) seems really clear to me. "...no person may act as pilot in command of a high-performance airplane..."

What exemption do student pilots have? How does the make/model sign-off for solo student pilots overrule 61.31?

They're acting as PIC and the regs require an endorsement to do so. What more is there to say?
Click to expand...
Maybe they are considering the solo endorsement the endorsement. Since it is plane specific it would sort of be for a high-performance plane, just limited to one plane.
 
The endorsement is required as I read this interpretation from January 2010 for any time the person is acting as PIC including a check ride. This letter was in response to a request from Taylor Grayson from Memphis TN - without giving undue credit I believe this is our tgrayson who is also from Memphis?

Endorsement is not required for "ratings limitations" per 61.31(l)(2) and are only applicable to items in 61.31(c) and (d).

The items in 61.31(e) through (j) require the endorsement.

Now do you consider the solo endorsement the same HP endorsement? If so better hang onto your student pilot certificate for the rest of your life other wise you have no high performance endorsement. And would only be for that airplane.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...terpretations/data/interps/2010/Grayson-1.pdf
 
amjon said:
Maybe they are considering the solo endorsement the endorsement. Since it is plane specific it would sort of be for a high-performance plane, just limited to one plane.
Click to expand...

Problem is that the student pilot certificate disappears entirely. It goes to the FAA and who knows hoe long before the information is gone.

AFAIK there is no specific interpretaion about whether a student pilot needs to have the logbook endorsement. I know a lot of people think it's implicit but there are Chief Counsel letters and NTSB decisions (probably the most famous being the "ok to solo" endorsement case) which at least suggest that endorsement requirements are strict and not implicit in anything else.

I'd weigh in on the side of the 2-minute separate logbook endorsement unless someone can show me where the FAA has said in somehting official that it's not required.
 
MidlifeFlyer said:
Problem is that the student pilot certificate disappears entirely. It goes to the FAA and who knows hoe long before the information is gone.

AFAIK there is no specific interpretaion about whether a student pilot needs to have the logbook endorsement. I know a lot of people think it's implicit but there are Chief Counsel letters and NTSB decisions (probably the most famous being the "ok to solo" endorsement case) which at least suggest that endorsement requirements are strict and not implicit in anything else.

I'd weigh in on the side of the 2-minute separate logbook endorsement unless someone can show me where the FAA has said in somehting official that it's not required.
Click to expand...
When does it go to the FAA? I still have mine (it is also my medical, so if they took it I wouldn't have a medical anymore). I'm not saying doing an endorsement wouldn't be a wise thing, just presenting a possible argument they may have. ;) (And I wouldn't think the solo endorsement in one plane would be relevant to any other plane that is complex/ HP, but plane specific).
 
The student pilot should also have a logbook endorsement. The logbook endorsement required by 61.87(n)(2) does specify make & model for the student, however, the words in 61.31(e)(1)(ii) could be used with the make/model limitation only applicable while a student pilot.
 
amjon said:
When does it go to the FAA? I still have mine (it is also my medical, so if they took it I wouldn't have a medical anymore). I'm not saying doing an endorsement wouldn't be a wise thing, just presenting a possible argument they may have. ;) (And I wouldn't think the solo endorsement in one plane would be relevant to any other plane that is complex/ HP, but plane specific).
Click to expand...
You're right. I forgot that they were combined. But that mekes the logbook endorsement even more necessary since that certifciate is going to be tossed out (unless you keep it as a memento).

And, of course, the FAA does have the 8710 with the M&M that you tok you checkride it.

But I'll stick with the FAA's tendency to reject the concept of implicit endorsements and that if the question came up in the context of an "event" the lack of endorsement would be an enforcement problem for the pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top